09 February 2019 12:17 PM

My Response to an Attempt to Defend Censorship

I have interleaved my responses (marked ** and distinguished by use of varying typefaces) with this article by Eden Ladley, an LGBT+ officer of the National Union of Students, which appeared in the ‘Independent’ online on Friday, 8th February 2019 . The original article, uninterrupted by my retorts, can be found in full here:

Eden Ladley begins: Another week, another contrived controversy about censorious students. The latest threat to free speech is apparently the fact that the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens has had his event delayed at the University of Portsmouth Students’ Union.

***PH: It is absurd to say the event has been ‘delayed’. Had the ceiling fallen down in in the room in which it was due to take place or had I fallen ill, or had there been a train strike or a blizzard, preventing me from reaching Portsmouth that evening, the event would have been delayed.

But the reason why the meeting will not be held is a human decision. The decision is based on the belief that my opinions are so bad that I should not be allowed to speak. That belief is based on a rejection of the very idea of freedom of speech. And the ultimate grounds for the decision are grounds of censorship and thought control. The pretence of ‘delay’ is absurd. Nobody, treated as I have been, could conceivably accept a second invitation from someone who had behaved in this fashion. If the pretext stated here was enough to ‘postpone’ the meeting, then it is certain that another, similar pretext could be found at any time to ‘postpone’ any attempt to reschedule it. In any case, I don’t address bodies which censor speakers on the grounds that they do not like their opinions. If I ever do speak to Portsmouth students, it will be in premises outside the control of the UPSU. Or perhaps we could do it on the beach at Southsea one summer evening.

Here is the e-mail which I received from the University of Portsmouth Students’ Union. They originally asked me not to make it public, but, as they have done so themselves, I feel I am freed from this obligation.

‘Dear Mr Hitchens,

I am very sorry to have to notify you that unfortunately, we are going to have to reschedule our booking with you to speak as part of UPSU's 'Big Talk' series on 12th February 2019. Owing to feedback regarding some past comments, our students feel that the timing of the event in the middle of the University's Pride Month, is not appropriate.

Our Vice-President (***PH notes: who had invited me***) is currently overseas and will be in touch on his return to reschedule a date and rearrange the event. I appreciate that you are a very busy man, but if you are able to let us know of any possible options that would be most helpful. I again apologise for any inconvenience that this may have caused you. If you had already booked your rail tickets could you please send me through the information so that you can be reimbursed for any expense incurred.

As anyone can easily see, this e-mail from UPSU is not a suggestion, or a request, as anyone would normally send out to someone who is being *asked* politely to agree to a rescheduling of a meeting already arranged and diaried, something which usually involves quite a lot of planning. (UPSU had even booked me a hotel room). It is a decree. It dishonestly uses the word ‘unfortunately’, as if it refers to some chance event beyond the writer's control, like an earthquake, or a giant squid invading the campus.

Yet fortune has nothing to do with it. The people telling me that the meeting won’t happen are the people who *decided* it would not happen. They can hardly describe their own voluntary decision as some sort of random piece of ill-luck. ‘We are going to have to’ is again dishonest. They pretend to be acting under some sort of irresistible compulsion. They did not ‘have to’ stop the meeting. They could have decided to go ahead with it. But they did not. . Also the words ‘Owing to feedback regarding some past comments’ make it plain that the objection is not to the timing, but to what I think. The people who oppose the meeting have searched out articles written, in some cases, many years ago. Quite right too . I admire thorough research. But if timing is the issue, then the age of the articles would surely diminish their importance. Plainly, it doesn’t. The objections they have to my opinions apply at all times and in all places, and will endure as long as I live and possibly beyond that point. Fine by me. I don’t mind if people disagree with me. It is their unlovely method of disputation (shutting me up) that I don’t like. .

Then there is the claim that ‘our students feel that the timing of the event in the middle of the University's Pride Month, is not appropriate.’ No doubt some Portsmouth students feel this way. But I know from other messages I received that day (including one from a group of students trying to find a way of holding the meeting anyway) that others did not. The UPSU received a complaint from some students and more or less instantly did their bidding. They cancelled a long-planned event which had been widely-advertised (on Facebook, and on my blog and Twitter feed). They also received a petition in defence of my freedom to speak, from another group of students. This seems to have had less effect. Those involved really should admit (not least to themselves) that they did what they did because they chose to do it.

In which the protestors’ leader says ‘ After such a successful pride week with thousands of students standing up for LGBT+ peoples I find it insulting and disrespectful to allow Mr Hitchens to speak.’

He adds: ‘These views are not what the students of Portsmouth university share, therefore allowing Mr Hitchens to speak is unacceptable and against the wishes of Portsmouth university students. I request that the invitation to speak be immediately withdrawn and that the university of Portsmouth release a public apology for not only ignoring but going against the hard work that staff and students have put in to making the university of Portsmouth an inclusive and diverse university.’

I can hardly imagine that a person who feels so strongly against me will simply cease to do so because Pride Week, or LGBT+ month, whichever it was (I have seen both mentioned) had come to an end. Anyone would think that this arbitrary stretch of time had the force of a period of official national mourning, or similar, given the way it is cited (Once upon a time one might have cited Holy Week or Lent, but as these are now barely noticed by most of the population they are not good parallels). It is as if one were not allowed to say anything unpatriotic on Winston Churchill’s birthday, or anything conservative on May Day.

In fact, I can guarantee that any future such meeting on any day of the year would meet with protests from this quarter. The Oxford students who cited some of the same articles on this occasion in November 2017 did not seem especially interested in the calendar.

The UPSU, having given in to these arguments with such speed, could in my view be expected to do so again, whatever the date. They’ve already proved that free speech isn’t safe in their hands. If you hired a removal firm and they dropped a priceless Ming vase on a stone floor, would you hire them again for another move, if you still had any fragile valuables left by then?

*******

Eden Ladley resumes: ‘According to the students’ union, their members expressed concerns about inviting Hitchens during LGBT History Month, given his stated views on LGBT+ rights. Therefore, the decision was made to delay the event until after this month.

Following the announcement, Hitchens took to Twitter to denounce the students’ union as “thought police” and described it as the end of English freedom.’

***PH notes, no, not quite : I tweeted as follows : ‘Thought Police alert: Portsmouth University Students' Union have 'postponed' a meeting I was due [to] address next Tuesday, because my opinions are unacceptable. Poor old Pompey has suffered so much in defence of English freedom, and this is how it all ends.’ You always need the nuance. *****

Eden Ladley resumes:

‘This sort of hyperbole helps no one and certainly makes me question who the so-called “special snowflakes” are in this situation.

LGBT+ students who would rather not have a known opponent of LGBT+ rights on their campus during a month dedicated to their history, or the Mail on Sunday columnist with a huge platform throwing all his toys out the pram.’

***PH remarks. What is this expression supposed to mean? Is it in some way babyish to object when you are told that a long-planned meeting which you were booked to address has been cancelled because some people don’t like what you think? I tend to think that everything I have said about the matter has been measured, even regretful. And what is the significance of my platform on the Mail on Sunday? It is not I who lose by this decision, but the people who would have gone to hear me. It is a wholly different thing to hear someone speak, and to be able to put questions to him, than to read a newspaper column****

Eden Ladley resumes:

‘This situation reflects the current media obsession with the alleged epidemic of “no platforming”. Once again, it’s worth noting that the NUS – the special snowflake headquarters of student politics – only has six or seven groups on its no platforming list. All of them are fascist, racist and/or antisemitic organisations. Given Jewish students in the West Midlands are menaced by the neo-Nazi group National Action to the extent that some need armed escorts, it’s sensible that that we recognise that hate speech isn’t free speech.

Beyond that, many widely reported incidences of no platforming were nothing of the sort. In the past, when we have declined an invitation to speak, claims are always exaggerated. The protests against trans-exclusionary feminists, such as Germaine Greer, were often more to raise awareness of transphobic public statements rather than to storm the lecture theatre and drag them off campus. This is clearly a misrepresentation.

What I see – rather than a bunch of oversensitive students – are oversensitive public figures with an entitlement to a platform.’

***PH remarks: on ‘oversensitivity’, see above. Eden Ladley needs to experience the phenomenon, as the object of it, to judge. Surely it would be astonishing and plain odd if I wasn’t even slightly miffed by this? I was irritated by the slippery e-mail from UPSU, but my main personal reaction is one of satirical mirth at the sheer overbearing silliness of these zealots. The main direct effect on me is that I now have lots of extra time to myself which would previously have been spent traipsing about on late, uncomfortable trains, which I can now spend in the pursuit of selfish pleasure.

Much of this section is a straw man defence against charges which have not been levelled, while avoiding the true charge which is actually involved, that a Student Union has prevented a meeting because it doesn’t like the speaker’s views. Nobody has spoken of anyone storming lecture theatres or dragging people off campus, though both Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel have had some dispiriting experiences at the hands of student organisations, as anyone who checks the record can see. I myself have had several experiences of silly intolerance, beginning with a long ago NUS event at which my microphone was switched off, thanks to lies having been circulated about what I had said, and an official having decided I was guilty without a hearing. I was ordered from the stage by that official, during a debate with the late Howard Marks, who then put his arm round me and walked off the stage with me in solidarity saying ‘If he’s going, I’m going too’, bless him. We were friends ever afterwards.

I don’t think slogans such as ‘hate speech isn’t free speech’ tell us very much. They appear to be objective but are not. Anyone who wishes to censor or shut down any writer or speaker will allege that what he is censoring or shutting down is ‘hate speech’. But the expression has no objective meaning or measure. Since the Macpherson report, all a complainant has to do is to say that someone perceived it as such, and the case is closed. This arrangement leaves free speech in constant peril, with no recourse to law in its defence. In fact current English law, with the dubious provisions of Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, is actively hostile to free speech (see the case of Harry Hammond, here https://web.archive.org/web/20120213052616/http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/9981/keep-quiet-or-face-arrest.thtml . NB Mr Hammond died soon afterwards, and his appeal failed) .

Our law offers no proper protection of freedom of speech and, lacking a First Amendment, could all too easily be used to suppress it. A very interesting book about how the First Amendment operates on American university campuses, ‘The Shadow University’. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-University-Betrayal-Americas-Campuses/dp/0060977728 explains the way in which a law protecting free speech can operate, and its limitations.

So who defines what is ‘hate speech’? In my experience, even articles or remarks that specifically reject hatred and condemn hatred can be so classified, by those who want to shut me up or despise me. There is no assessor to whom I can go, if i wish to challenge this.

The only workable limits on speech are those developed by US courts over centuries, for enforcing the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. The courts have recognised limits, mainly that incitement to violence or other crime is not protected, and nor is a false shout of ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. But that’s about it. ***

Eden Ladley resumes: They often can’t comprehend why the most socially liberal generation in British history may not be interested in hearing conservative views; instead wanting to listen to and engage with academics and writers at the cutting edge of discussion on campus.

***PH remarks. On the contrary, I take a keen interest in the matter, and understand it all too well, not least because in my own Trotskyist student days, nearly 50 years ago, I was involved in similar activities myself, which I now greatly regret. I know very well what motivated these actions, and also know what I didn’t know then – that they were wrong and why they were wrong. In my experience, those who wish to shut me up are very interested in my views indeed ( I wish others were so interested) and spend a lot of time combing the internet for things I have written or said to which they can object. As I always say, people will go to a lot of trouble to be offended, sometimes travelling hundreds of miles, sometimes spending hours on Google, to find and experience material which upsets them. By the way, is ‘socially liberal’ the right expression? Liberalism originally implied a liking for freedom. Actually the sexual revolutionaries are not liberal at all about those who still put in a word for lifelong marriage, and Christian ideas of sexual morality. ***

Eden Ladley resumes : The fact that decolonisation campaigns, trans-feminist events and anti-Prevent events are the most undermined in the mainstream press doesn’t seem to be relevant in the free speech brigade. I’m much more sympathetic to Palestine solidarity activists having their events shut down, Islamic Societies under surveillance and feminists who want anti-abortion groups off campus than I am to writers and public figures with books, interviews and articles (i.e. a platform) who have one of their events challenged.

***PH remarks. This is a nonsequitur. I am myself a critic of the ‘Prevent’ programme , and am especially keen to protect the free speech of people I dislike and disagree with : See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNn9szXVb0 about 1min 50 secs into this.

What does the fact that I have a platform elsewhere have to do with it? I simply cannot see the logic behind this point. Do Eden Ladley’s various rather predictable political passions entitle *anyone* to prevent someone else from speaking at a public meeting, or to prevent someone from attending that meeting because it is no longer taking place, which is what happened to me, and to those students at Portsmouth who wished to hear me?***

Eden Ladley resumes: ‘The current narrative over students being special snowflakes appeared after increased access to universities in the UK and US, especially following desegregation, challenging sexism and so on – this makes me very uneasy.’

***PH writes: I try not to use the term 'snowflakes' . But this is a false correlation. When I was at university in the early 1970s, the success of academically selective state grammar schools had opened the universities (including the very best universities) to children from poor homes in a way which I wish we could return to, which is why I campaign incessantly for the reintroduction of grammar schools. The problem as more to do with the severe watering down of standards, which followed the abolition of state grammar schools and the Direct Grant schools soon afterwards, and the very poor quality of the schools which now prepare the young for university. In these schools, students are taught what to think, and to be conformists, rather than taught how to think, and to be questioning, independent-minded individuals.

These attempts to silence dissent are simply self-enforcement of groupthink, motivated by fear of differing opinions, and a suppressed suspicion that the dissidents might be right. In my experience, there’s nothing that makes someone as angry as expressing his own secret doubts.

Eden Ladley resumes : ‘There’s very much a sense of “we want students to challenge ideas, but not those ideas.” Isn’t that exactly what figures like Hitchens fear so much?

***PH remarks. Is there ‘very much a sense of “we want students to challenge ideas, but not those ideas.”? I have not noticed it. Who is saying this? Not I, for sure. In any case (and it seems very sad that I should even need to point this out) you do not challenge an idea by preventing it from being expressed.

Comments

I gave two reasons. One is the disappearing posts, but the other, even more important, is that internet discussion is rarely a good use of one's. This case is a good illustration. I have said all I wish to, and I note you continue to avoid defending or explaining your blatant misrepresentation of Sally's post. Why would I bother staying to play your pointless games? If I am around, I will continue to call out your behaviour, but I have no interest, and never did, in actually discussing things with you. What would be the point? You rarely say anything substantive. No doubt it is your inability or disinclination to do so that is the cause of your standard behaviour.

Snide? Well, I admit it wasn't exactly complimentary, but reading the last little blast, the point about 'never having seen it here before' and 'seeking help from the management' is surely a reasonably accurate description of your position.

Still, at least your posts are appearing and, more pleasing, you're still on board! No sudden disappearance for several weeks after one of our chats about the state of the nation. I'm still digesting the reason (the state of the blog not being to your liking) that you earlier gave for your regular periods of silence.

Thank you for a good illustration of the behaviour I was referring to. You try to ignore the discussion of your deliberate misrepresentation of Sally's post and end your post with a textbook snide jibe. A worthwhile, mature contribution, I must say. My problem has been that when I point out this behaviour my posts tend to go missing. Let's see.

Well, some good news is that we all seem to be suffering from lost posts, but on the subject of 'jibes aimed at conservatives' I'm sure that if were there more 'non-conservatives' posting here then my humble efforts would stand out far less than they do.
I don't object to return fire, particularly as I live in hope of a small increase in the number of 'non-conservative' contributors here following recent events... but I do find it strange that you now appear to be calling for changes in the house rules. I don't think I've seen that before, but I guess there's always going to be somebody who needs help when things appear to be against them...

It would be good to know just what are the rules here, actually. Why does one poster get away with doing little else but posting snide jibes against conservatives, but if one points this out or frankly responds, one's posts more often than not don't appear. Is it or is not against the rules here to point out blatant baiting and trolling is just that? Is it against the rules to refer to posters who consistently engage in such behaviour as trolls?

It would be good to know just what are the rules here, actually. Why does one poster get away with doing little else but posting snide jibes against conservatives, but if one points this out or frankly responds, one's posts more often than not don't appear. Is it or is not against the rules here to point out blatant baiting and trolling is just that? Is it against the rules to refer to posters who consistently engage in such behaviour as trolls?

Third attempt to post a reply (first was around mid-day Sunday, second similar time on Monday).

Both were of a light-hearted nature, if that's of any help, but what else would you expect? It seems to be somewhat quiet elsewhere, but it is half-term and, after recent events, who can blame folk for seeking a break...

Ugh. Another of my posts seems to have gone missing. Again, it was frank and forthright, but not what I'd call unacceptable or abusive, let alone illegal. I feel no embarrassment at calling out consistent baiting and trolling. Such behaviour is widely considered beyond the pale of acceptable online comment. It's hardly taddling or snitching to complain about blatant, repeated examples. It seems the poster calling himself Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth has had some posts responding to the same commentator go missing as well. I wouldn't mind so much if snide, understated baiting and trolling was better moderated. But as the latter seems to often get through, we should be able to respond to it forthrightly, though not abusively (and I submit calling trolling for what it is and naming blatant trolls, is not unacceptable or abusive).

And the words that you removed from Sally's post, Alan, completely change it. By removing those words, you could construct a strawman of Sally as an intolerant right-winger, just trying to punish those who disagree with her. The deleted words made it clear she was talking about those at a public institution, one of learning no less, who abused their power to censor ideological opponents. That's quite reasonable a d quite a different thing from just wanting to punish leftists because they're leftists.

Well, other than placing myself centre-left, where I can't recall anybody wishing to stop students having their say, and having already said to John (13/2 at 1.19pm) that I did not approve of their actions in the matter in hand, you now seem to be struggling to present a case that defends your own style of address to others.

In any case, and here I repeat myself, the question of how you address those who you disagree with was the subject I broached (I could have mentioned the subject on many of your posts here, but the trigger was your '...respect for the words of others' line on this thread).

Third attempt to get my point across and second attempt to respond to:

Posted by: Alan Thomas | 15 February 2019 at 04:44 PM

Allow me to see if I can get more than distractionary bluster this time:

> Posted by: Alan Thomas | 13 February 2019 at 11:00 AM
>> "All I'm asking for is they respect the words of others..."
> 'Well, that brings me back to the subject of 'own goals' and respect for others.

You are the one scoring own goals by your lack of respect for others and their arguments.

> 'I mean, considering the fact that the vast majority of your posts here show the very opposite to respect for those you disagree with politically, the above words are 'rich' in the extreme. Indeed, they reveal a hatred for those that you oppose.....'
> '...plus several other throwaway lines that frequently litter your posts) might well result in more thoughtful readers wondering if such throwaways are taken from the training manual of the EDL, or even the under-new management UKIP!'

That "throwaway line" is clearly meant to insinuate that your opponents are using EDL tactics and that that is a "bad thing", while revealing a hatred for those that you oppose.....'!

But clearly you are the one who must be familiar with the EDL handbook to be able to make the comparison.

So please answer the question:

"So you have a copy of the EDL training manual, do you?!"

Or admit you are making things up in order to insult.

As for:

"You seem to use Alinsky's Rules For "Radicals" more!"

If you really don't know who he is (where have you been? Even Clinton did a thesis on him!) there are many search engines which can help!

And, again:

"As the now outed and silenced secret policeman blogger pointed out, as every policeman that has ever had any involvement with them knows, the EDL never start any trouble, it's always the "Anti" Fascists who turn up to silence them who are to blame."

If you have any actual proof that the organisation as a whole is disreputable in itself, never mind has a handbook to help it be so, feel free to present it.

I have not tried to or would wish to stop anyone from speaking on university campuses. I leave that to your side of the political spectrum. That is what I mean by respecting others views. To respect or not respect an opinion you have to hear it first.

But you resort to the usual dishonest trick of trying to equate what I say, which you disagree, with banning others from speaking at all. The left increasingly won’t allow the other side to speak. The reason for this is they have elevated their “offence” as more important than free speech itself. This is a philistine view, and an obvious way of shutting down anything you don’t agree with by claiming it offends.

I am still waiting for you to offer your solution to stopping student unions from banning speakers. I have given you my solution. Its up to your side of the argument to first prove you really believe in free speech, and then tell us how you intend to protect that right. Until you do so I can’t take you seriously.

I would be mortified if you didn't. I mean, my posts are always in simple language and, in some cases, appear to strike home rather effectively. And what's more, apart from your own case, never result in 'appeals to the referee'.

If by 'selective editing' you mean the examples of 'bad-mouthing political opponents that I quoted - particularly after having asked for 'people to respect the views of others' - I could have cited many more cases of such behaviour if I had been less selective.

'Postponement' or 'ban'? What difference does it make now? For example, the Turkish government is postponing the unblocking of Wikipedia.* Whether we believe their profession to be freedom-loving is unimportant.

Pull the other one, as the saying goes. Do you think I don't know exactly what you're about by now? Do you think any regulars here don't? It is a waste of time for you to try your wounded non-partisan routine. What did you do in this very thread: you saw that left-liberals were being criticised, so you made sure to try to even the score by finding a conservative poster, selectively editing her comments, and then making jibes against her. This is hardly out of character.

Other than 'pathetic', I struggle to think of a suitable adjective to describe your latest offering.
When you first voiced a similar thought - several years ago now if I recall correctly - I put it down to a young man expecting to find that thoughts would be monitored in favour of the majority of contributors . Perhaps that might be so in blog-sites elsewhere. Your view might, of course, simply be down to a sheltered upbringing, one can only guess.

In the case in question, is it not somewhat ironic that you appear to defend the habit of adding endless and, in my view, often thoughtless, terms of address to those seen as political opponents both here and in the world in general?

And how do you know that my posts are not moderated, or go astray, with the same frequency as your own?

It must have been a computer issue somewhere along the line. I have had a relatively high proportion of posts disappear. I have noticed this is particularly the case is one is Frank and forthright about other posters, though not what I would call unacceptable. Often these missing posts just point out there is one poster here who seems to get away with consistent baiting and trolling of conservatives - he does little else here, though he wisely tends not to criticise you directly - presumably because he does it in a snide and underhanded way. You yourself must have noticed this poster. I don't see why just noting there is a trolling here should be censored. It can hardly be illegal. It may not be conducive to the best environment here, but neither is the presence of outright trolls. In other words, I wouldn't mind so much if this other poster was similarly restricted, but either because of his style or some other reason, a lot of his snide jibes at conservative posters get through the moderation, whilst more straightforward (but I think acceptable) responses do not.

> 'Well, that brings me back to the subject of 'own goals' and respect for others. I mean, considering the fact that the vast majority of your posts here show the very opposite to respect for those you disagree with politically, the above words are 'rich' in the extreme. Indeed, they reveal a hatred for those that you oppose.....'

> '...plus several other throwaway lines that frequently litter your posts) might well result in more thoughtful readers wondering if such throwaways are taken from the training manual of the EDL, or even the under-new management UKIP!'

So you have a copy of the EDL training manual, do you?!

You seem to use Alinsky's Rules For "Radicals" more!

As the now outed and silenced secret policeman blogger pointed out, as every policeman that has ever had any involvement with them knows, the EDL never start any trouble, it's always the "Anti" Fascists who turn up to silence them who are to blame.

But what can you expect from the descendants of the Stasi?

As someone (actually an Italian originally) once said: in future the Fascists will call themselves "Anti Fascists".

My response to you hasn't appeared. If you want to know why I don't hang around here that much, this is why. Nothing directly to do with you. The moderation here frustrates and turns away decent posters. ***PH I can find no comment from him that is unpublished. He should submit it again.***

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.